This paper develops a risk assessment framework for airport development projects. It discusses the major types of inherent development risk, including political risk, environmental risk, financial risk, airline risk, forecast risk, and regulatory or operational risk, and it offers suggestions for risk mitigation strategies. Furthermore, it identifies and analyzes relative risk determinants, which affect the magnitude and type of risk that development projects will likely face. These include the presence of a dominant airline, the airport’s rate structure, the airport’s ownership and operating structure, local demand, and geopolitical events. These factors and their interconnected relationships are illustrated through case studies of relevant airport development projects.
PriceM.ACRP Report 116: Guidebook for Successfully Assessing and Managing Risks for Airport Capital and Maintenance Projects. Airport Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2014.
3.
FlyvbjergB.BruzeliusN.RothengatterW.Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
4.
FlyvbjergB.Policy and Planning for Large Infrastructure Projects: Problems, Causes, Cures. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 34, 2007, pp. 578–597.
5.
NielsenK. R. Some Practical Thoughts—Risk Allocation Regarding Airport Projects in China. Proc., IPBA Conference, Risk Allocations on Airports Session, Beijing, China. 2007.
6.
Calleam Consulting, Ltd. Case Study - Denver International Airport Baggage Handling System - An Illustration of Ineffectual Decision Making. 2008. https://www5.in.tum.de/~huckle/DIABaggage.pdf.
7.
de NeufvilleR. The Baggage System at Denver: Prospects and Lessons. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 1, No. 4, 1994, pp. 229–236.
8.
DempseyP. S.GoetzA. R.SzyliowiczJ. S.Denver International Airport: Lessons Learned. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997.
Lee County Port Authority Department of Communications and Marketing. Southwest Florida International Airport (RSW) Total Passengers. http://www.flylcpa.com/uploads/pagesfiles /2379.pdf.
San Francisco International Airport. SFO Officials React to Independent Report on Alternatives to Reduce Delays without Runway Separation. http://media.flysfo.com/CRArelease2_24_01.pdf.
World Economic Forum and The Boston Consulting Group. Mitigation of Political & Regulatory Risk in Infrastructure Projects: Introduction and Landscape of Risk. 2015.
50.
FlyvbjergB., and COWI. Procedures for Dealing with Optimism Bias in Transport Planning: Guidance Document. UK Department for Transport, London, 2004.
51.
WachsM.Ethics and Advocacy in Forecasting for Public Policy. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, Vol. 9, 1990, pp. 141–157.
KincaidI.TrethewayM.GrosS.LewisD.ACRP Report 76: Addressing Uncertainty about Future Airport Activity Levels in Airport Decision Making. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012.
54.
KramerL. S.ACRP Synthesis 19: Airport Revenue Diversification - A Synthesis of Airport Practice. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010.
55.
de NeufvilleR.OdoniA.Airport Systems: Planning, Design, and Management (2nd ed.). New York, McGraw Hill, 2014.
56.
KrausA.KochB.The Opportunities and Threats of Turning Airports into Hubs. Journal of Air Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2006, pp. 87–112.
57.
BurghouwtG.Airport Capacity Expansion Strategies in the Era of Airline Multi-hub Networks. International Transport Forum Discussion Papers No. 2013/05. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2013. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1787/5k46n421b15b-en.
58.
AlfredR.Jr.StarcherD. E.Contract Risk Management for Airport Agreements. Airport Cooperative Research Program Legal Research Digest 30. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2016.
